Proposed amendment: National Vote of Confidence

[TechBear_Seattle]

We've been hearing about state legislatures passing resolutions asking that their Congress critters support impeachment. That got me thinking about how we really could use something with teeth.

I want something reasonably simple and unambiguous that would let the people bypass the "one party to rule them all" situation that we have now, with a president that is too incompetent to keep office and a Congress that refuses to impeach.

Ideally, we would have an election to replace the sitting president and vice-president with a new administration. That would give the people a chance to avoid where the next in line -- I believe the Speaker of the House -- is party to the failings of the executive branch. However, I've chosen not to go that way for two reasons: speed and money. It would take vast sums to pull off a presidential election out of thin air, and parties would demand extended periods of time to hold primaries and get their candidate's name and message out to the voters.

Less ideal, but with other benefits, is an impeachment by the people. Such a vote of confidence could be pulled off relatively quickly, as there are no candidates. A single, simple to understand question would be asked of all voters: "Shall the current President, <insert full name>, and the current Vice-President, <insert full name>, be removed from office?" If a majority of the people say yes, the president and vice-president will be immediately removed from office, exactly as if both had been impeached by the Senate.

Ignore for the moment how such an amendment might be proposed to the states. Where I need some help is: How might this mechanism be improved? Can it be made simpler with less wiggle room to get around it? How can this idea be translated into "amendment speak"?

Your constructive input would be most appreciated. :hi:

Here is the outline of what I have in mind for the amendment. Some of the oddness is because I've borrowed from the Constitution where I could.

A state legislature may pass a resolution calling for a national vote of confidence in the President and Vice President together. Such a resolution shall be valid until 180 days before the next regular presidential election, or until withdrawn. Resolutions shall be forwarded to the United States Senate, who shall keep a tally of what states have such resolutions active.

Upon the resolution of two-thirds of the state legislatures, the Senate shall ratify the petition for a national vote of confidence. Once ratified, a vote shall be held regardless of what resolutions might be withdrawn by the states. Once ratified, Congress shall set a date no less than ninety days and no more than 180 days after ratification. This date shall be the same for all the states.

On the day appointed, voters will be asked this question: "Shall the current President, <insert full name>, and the current Vice-President, <insert full name>, be removed from office?" Voters will be allowed to select Yes or No. A correct record of the number of votes cast for Yes and the number of votes cast for No shall be certified by the states, sealed and transmitted to the Senate. No more than thirty days after the national vote of confidence, a chosen member of the Senate other than the President of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives and in the view of the American people, shall open all the certificates and the votes of the people shall then be counted.

If there are more Yes votes than No votes, the President and Vice President shall be considered impeached and shall immediately be removed from office.

[ixion]

1. Sounds like a very nice check, to me...

I'm all for it. :hi:

[peacebird]

2. I like the idea - but is it possible without Congress changing laws?

I don't see the Repukes in Congress having the stomach for that....

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. This would be put in place as an amendment, not as a law

It would have to be put in place as an amendment, actually. And as for the Republicans in Congress... Article V of the Constitution gives the states the explicit power to bypass Congress and proposes amendments directly, with the proposed amendments being ratified by 3/4ths of the states same as Congressional proposals. Amendments by convention have never been done in the US, but I think it is time we tried.

[Q3JR4]

3. I always kinda thought

that an amendment like this could be used to remove supreme court justices from office. If we make it as hard as possible (i.e., if 2/3rd majority of the voting population in the United States votes to remove the justice), then the court will still have insulation as far as their decisions go from public pressure and the other branches of government. Furthermore, some states have provisions in their constitutions that allow the people to collect X number of signatures in Y number of precincts and then by majority vote in an election create or repeal laws. We could even set it up so that a constitutional amendment could somehow originate with the people and not with the congress (a higher bar for the number of states who vote to amend the constitution i.e., 2/3rds majority instead of a majority with approval of some small number of our congresscritters--1/3rd of the house and 1/3rd the senate or some such).

In today's day and age there should be no reason why a popular vote for president and vice president couldn't be carried out on the federal level. The only change I'd make is that we split the statement into two questions; one about the VP (i.e., should the V.P. be removed from office?) and one about the P (i.e, should the P. be removed from office?) each removal being separate from the other.

This process wouldn't really be impeachment. Impeachment is nothing more than to bring charges against. According to what I've read, impeachment proceedings can be started by a state legislature, but that doesn't mean the president in question will be removed from office. For instance, Bill Clinton was impeached, he just wasn't removed.

All-in-all I like it. This would give the people a more direct way to make our public officials accountable to the court of public opinion.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Not sure about removing judges by referendum

That's not what I'm looking at, anyway.

As for having a national initiative process... most definitely, unequivocably NO! I live in Washington, where the initiative has been abused to Hell and back, and back to Hell again. One of the last things I would be willing to support is allowing fifty states' worth of nut-jobs making their fortunes trying to pass idiotic laws. One Tim Eyman in my political life is quite enough, thanks.

Constitutional amendments can begin with the people. All it takes is two thirds of the states to call for a convention, and Congress is bypassed completely. All proposals made at the convention are then passed on the states and will be ratified with the approval of three-fourths of the states, just like proposals passed by Congress. See Article V of the United States Constitution.

My thinking for combining the president and vice-president is that they are elected together as a single entity and they should be "unelected" together, as well. Also, having a single question rather than two would, I hope, minimize confusion.

And you are right: impeachment is equivalent to indictment, not trial. I will make the appropriate changes.

[adwon]

4. Not no but hell no

This would mean that far less than a majority of the population could remove a president they disliked at will. As it currently stands, over half the population lives in 13 states. It's bad enough that a minority of senators have consistently been able to block useful legislation by virtue of overrepresentation in the senate, now we'd get it in the executive too? No thanks.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Recheck how this is balanced

The calling of a vote of confidence requires a resolution by two thirds of the states. By no means could a minority of the population remove a president: the citizens of 34 states first must convince their state legislatures that a confidence vote is necessary and then keep them convinced until the resolutions are ratified and the vote called, all in no more than a 3.5 year period (from the time the president is inaugurated to the 180 day cut-off of the next presidential election.) It would not be easy, but it would be possible. Again, the idea is to provide a way to remove a corrupt or incompetent administration from office without having to rely on a do-nothing Congress.

[Zynx]

8. I prefer simply switching to a proportional representation parliametary

system with the head of state and government being seperate officials.

[adwon]

9. Check the stats

A minority of the population lives in 37 states. A majority lives in 13. Seeing as many small states are not purple, but red as hell, this would provide a means to remove Democratic presidents at will.

Further, it legitimizes the mistaken belief that states are sovereign. They are little better than convenient administrative units which are preserved in their current form by an accident of history, not because they have some intrinsic power. States can't secede and they can't override federal legislation. I fail to see how this measure would be congruent with these essential precepts of American politics.